Monday, December 01, 2008

Loony Moonbats and Reflected Nonsense (12.16.11)

Well, I'm back from my little mini-vacation, totally refreshed and totally disoriented. Where was I? I told you that if I stopped blogging every day, I'd lose the thread.

First things first: nice takedown of the deplorable Deepak at the Wall Street Journal. Deepak has already found out who's to blame for the Mumbai massacre: America! You see, when we fight terrorists, for some reason, we "inflame moderates," who aren't terrorists, but peace-loving Muslims. They are not to be blamed for their becoming "inflamed." But when Americans get inflamed over terrorists who torture innocent rabbis, it's our fault.

By the way, thanks to the left's disgusting debasement of language -- including by eminent moral perverts such as Deepak and Andrew Sullivan -- when one hears that the victims were tortured, one doesn't know whether to be horrified or relieved. Only tortured? Thank God!

I suppose that the next letter, The Moon, is timely, since it is also the Moonbat card. That is, it is a meditation on the task of human intelligence, which is to liberate itself from the type of magical enchantment that afflicts the secular world in general and the left in particular. There are "root causes" of Deepak's belligerent moral idiocy, and they obviously have nothing to do with poverty, humiliation, or lack of education.

Just how does one become such an arrogant buffoon? One does it through considerable movement, but it is retrograde movement, away from the nonlocal goal of vertical evolution. As UF puts it, this card "evokes ideas, feelings and impulses of will relating to the inversion of the evolutionary movement of life and consciousness, i.e., to their envelopment, arrest of movement, and retrograde movement."

Just as there are principles of growth, there are principles of existential shrinkage. In Deepak's case, he obviously fancies himself to be some sort of fount of creativity, but he is utterly trapped and enveloped within a stagnant and predictable world view. He is actually incapable of an original thought, but can only spew banalities. Nevertheless, they are "banalities of evil," since he has lost his capacity to be shocked by his own vileness. His being does not radiate, but envelops; and his mind is a swamp instead of a flowing current. Hence, the perfect breeding ground for Monsters of the Id, or mind parasites.

Now, UF points out that God has created three sources of light: the sun, the moon and the stars, or creative light, reflected light, and revealed light. Or, intellect, matter, and revelation. With regard to the moon, it is obviously inseparable from the earth, or matter, so that lunar intelligence is a "reflection" of the material world. In itself, this is not problematic. But when isolated from the Sun of creative evolution and the Stars of revelation -- well, that is how you create the barking moonbat, the loony atheist, the Queeg and all his little Queeglings.

Because materiality has only to do with the mechanical and repetitive aspects of the world. Thus, to be a moonbat is to worship matter and to convert oneself into a predicable machine that is its servant. And a machine knows nothing of starlight or sunlight, only the darkness of matter. And so the intellect is extinguished and "filled with dirt." It becomes as solid and impenetrable as rock, as our scientistic jester mechanically and repetitively proves to us day in, day out.

Again, this is hardly to say that reflected moonlight is unnecessary. To the contrary, as UF points out, "if deprived of the environment of the material world," we would be "incapable of separating out particular things from their enduring totality and grouping them into categories and classes" (because of the divisibility and malleability of matter), but also "powerless to manufacture the implements and machines" which supplement our "organs of action and perception."

In other words, as we have discussed in a previous card, the radical transcendental realism of a Plato would also result in a partial and therefore dysfunctional intelligence, because it regards the material world as totally in flux and therefore incapable of yielding any enduring truth. Likewise the "illusionism" (if that's the proper word) of a Shankara, who regards the phenomenal world as pure maya, or illusion.

As we noted in that earlier post, both Christianity and Judaism specifically sanctify matter, so that we may develop the proper relationship to it, neither elevating it to a god (pantheism, materialism, atheism, Algoreism) or dismissing it as a kind of evil illusion (manicheism, gnosticism, and many strands of new-ageism, i.e., "The Secret"). Most moonbats are an incoherent combination of the two, that is, absurdly worshiping a world that is ultimately devoid of meaning. They are the inverse of the Islamists, who wish to destroy a resistant world that does not conform to their omnipotent infantile fantasies.

Life is anterior to biology, just as consciousness is prior to matter. Matter is a kind of "congealed intelligence," which is why it is intelligible. Nevertheless, it is always reflected intelligence, and if we identify our own intelligence only with it, we will be unable to leave its sphere and "leap" into the pure intellect -- just as life could have never escaped matter if it only obeyed the laws of physics.

Now, the Gospel of John urges us -- and I'm paraphrasing UF here -- to transpose intelligence from the domain of the created (i.e., the reflected intelligence of matter) to the domain of the creative Word. This is the difference between mere knowledge and true understanding, or (k) and (n). The former is always "dead knowledge" that us bound to cause confusion if we try to apply it to the living Knower.

But the latter is living knowledge, or wisdom, which is also integral knowledge of the whole. It is the knowledge that is "in the beginning," and is therefore always creative. You will note that the atheist has no coherent or even minimally credible explanation for the genesis of the knower, which is again why his knowledge is both dead and deadening.

Oops. Out of time. To be continued.

Pictures? Okay, here we are up on the transcendental sun deck, discussing a fine point of Aquinas:

But then it was his turn to pick an activity, so we descended down to the park, into blessed matter:

114 comments:

Chopra: I think Mr. Obama has a real opportunity here, but a challenging opportunity, a creative opportunity. Get rid of the phrase "war on terrorism." Ask for a creative solution in which we all participate.

King: Is it because the war on terrorism really can never be won because the terrorists (inaudible)?

Chopra: Because it's an oxymoron. It's an oxymoron, Larry, a war on war, a war on terrorism.

King: Thanks, Deepak Chopra, as always, extraordinarily enlightening.

Though he blames American "petrodollars" for the problem, he anticipates participatory creativity from the President-elect. This is deep?

"He is actually incapable of an original thought, but can only spew banalities. Nevertheless, they are "banalities of evil," since he has lost his capacity to be shocked by his own vileness. His being does not radiate, but envelops; and his mind is a swamp instead of a flowing current. Hence, the perfect breeding ground for Monsters of the Id, or mind parasites."

Reminds me of one of those science class films of the queen ant endlessly pumping out disgusting looking eggs, from wiki: "Once the queen has found a suitable nesting site, she will urgently dig herself a tunnel ending in a small chamber [5]. She will seal herself within the chamber and, unless forced to, never emerge into the sunlight again, becoming acutely photophobic."

It's kind of funny reading posts by Ray Ingles. I'm sure he's a nice enough fellow, but he honestly doesn't know what he doesn't know. Pretty much everyone else here knows more or less what Bob is writing about, while Ray might as well be discussing Scrabble techniques at a baseball training camp.

Probably the best image I can summon when I consider Ray (and the legions like him) is of the drunk endlessly searching for his lost keys under the streetlight.

Can’t help noticing that it looks like the kind of weather I was promised… well… relatively speaking. When I checked the forecast on Wed, said 40’s & clear through the weekend… no rush putting lights up. Sat night? Snow. Yep, planned to put the lights up Sunday. There you go.

Actually come to think of it, autism captures the "Ray" phenomenon well. The mechanical repetition of the same narrow views day after day, and the absence of entire swaths of reality -- the ability to apperceive portions of reality...

Is it possible that folks like Ray lack the ability to comprehend what is said here because -- like the emotionally autistic or the color-blind -- they somehow are missing something essential... or is it simply the result of an impenetrable carapace which has taken years to accrete?

I think it is important to understand why these people are the way they are.

With someone who is truly color-blind (sees in B&W) they cannot ever imagine "red", however most such people do not therefore conclude that "red" does not exist or is some sort of myth invested in by the seduced majority.

Increasingly I am of the opinion that the mass of (especially Western) humanity is considerably more "off base" in their world view than their equivalent in almost any other epoch.

I remember starting out in the spiritual path what seems like a long time ago. I would have my own share of contempt and disdain for people who shared an interest in religion but got the theology wrong. The priest who presented a dualistic theology. The humanist church that seemed oblivious to the possibility of genuine mysticism. These people earned my scorn.

Looking back, it seems like part of a very early process of digesting my own developing intellectual understanding. Contending with and opposing the theology of other people was a stage of grasping for my own nascent understanding. The scorn was actually an expression of my own uncertainty and an effort to artificially bolster myself as a person of understanding.

I don’t have that same problem these days. There had to be a process whereby the intellectual food I was preparing for myself dropped down into my heart and my body. Beliefs are not the ultimate test of spiritual understanding and I don’t find myself provoked by people with differing beliefs.

In mature religion, contempt and disdain and scorn are not considered fruits of the Holy Spirit.

There are a couple of dimensions of the approach at OneCosmos that will support people in being stalled in this stage of contempt and scorn:

1. The neo-platonic theology that privileges beliefs and abstraction as the location of depth and truth. 2. The lack of involvement in a church community.

He asks a lot of questions, and naturally one assumes he is skeptical or has an agenda to prove. However, that is an inference without evidence to back it.

He makes assertive statements only about science, which is a method and not a belief system.

Whenever a raccoon makes an assertion, Ray tends to ask questions seeking clarification, which usually brings on the general boos and hisses from the peanut gallery (and occasionally, someone will attempt a thoughtful answer to the question).

Sooooo, in conclusion, I think Ray is playing y'all. Poke a nest of hornets with a stick, and they'll attack. It doesn't necessarily mean you disgree with the hornets, it only means you're looking for some entertainment.

There is something innately amusing about a group of serious, opinionated people that invites a poke with a stick, that's all.

Cousin, I understand that Bob qualifies Plato. The following statement is what I have in mind when I speak of Neo-Platonism.

“Life is anterior to biology, just as consciousness is prior to matter. Matter is a kind of "congealed intelligence," which is why it is intelligible. Nevertheless, it is always reflected intelligence, and if we identify our own intelligence only with it, we will be unable to leave its sphere and "leap" into the pure intellect -- just as life could have never escaped matter if it only obeyed the laws of physics.”

The existence and desirability of leaping into a sphere of pure intellect is Neo Platonism. I understand that it seems like Bob is pointing to something important. In the tradition of the Church we don’t point in this way because it reconstitutes the dualism that Bob just purported to dismiss.

Belonging to a church involves a responsibility to create a community out of diverse elements. Scorn and contempt get drawn out and worn away in the context of that commitment. So holding back from involvement in a living religious community protects the scorn and contempt.

I remember when I was young and scornful and expressing my scorn to a priest friend of mine – which is probably pretty similar to the scorn you express towards Deepak Chopra. My friend said [that church I hated] helps a lot of people who wouldn’t otherwise get involved with religion. As I said, it took many years for my scorn to wear away and but now I appreciate that my friend’s view is more natural and Christian.

When you can look at Deepak Chopra and perceive the ways in which he helps people you’ll feel closer to where you want to go too.

copper thorn said "When you can look at Deepak Chopra and perceive the ways in which he helps people you’ll feel closer to where you want to go too."

When you can look at deepack and perceive that for every vertical paper cut he bandages he severs a toe, and when the toes are gone, he severs a foot, and when the foot is gone, he severs an ankle, and so on… you may begin to appreciate the fact that forgoing scorn and contempt where it is deserved, while helping you to feel all swell about yourself, is condemning the innocent and unwary to spiritual destruction at the hands of those you failed to identify and scorn.

CT, you are confused by Bob's use of the term "intellect," by which he means the nous, without which God or any other intelligible reality could not be known. To "leap into the pure intellect" is simply to leap into God -- who in turn leaps into us via the same channel, so to speak. After all, the Word did become flesh.

If you go round and round with Ray, as I’ve foolishly done, you’ll find that he will finally state a position and a belief… which rests upon one skeptical assertion or another which in essence says that nothing can be known, and we couldn’t know it if it could – and then he’ll deny that he means that or that you could know it, all the while backing that up with the same assertions.

"Now, UF points out that God has created three sources of light: the sun, the moon and the stars, or creative light, reflected light, and revealed light. Or, intellect, matter, and revelation."

I think I could spend my entire life attempting to fathom the depths of these incomparable few lines:

"In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

...as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us..."

(John 1)

Outrageous, whether you believe it or not. But what a difference if you do. Night and day.

Cousin, your description of Bob’s use of “pure intellect’ is consistent with how I understood the term. And there is something very beautiful and important in what you say. And I still contend that when a dialectic is truly working it won’t be hierarchical in the way Bob presents. If the Word really did become flesh there wouldn’t be this need for leaping about hither and yon.

I wonder Van if you can share the times in your life when you’ve been helped by the scorn of other people – and in particular by the scorn of strangers. Because in my experience it is exceedingly rare to be able to help people through scorn. And in the meantime, you end up wounding yourself by carrying around this sour emotion. I think the idea that you are going to help people by hating them is something that might be regarded as a red flag.

How would this conversation go with someone who read Deepak Chopra and felt helped by that activity? How would this conversation go with Deepak Chopra? They’d be chased away, but they wouldn’t be helped.

I am quite convinced that the true spiritual challenge is to understand how that conversation could go while trying to imagine being on the same side as your interlocutor. I think that Deepak Chopra would not be afraid to hold your hand and talk about your differences in a sympathetic way.

Perhaps if you addressed your myopia, stopped trying to find such hybrid trees, and looked at the full context:

"You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 7.17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 7.18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 7.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "

copper thorn said "I wonder Van if you can share the times in your life when you’ve been helped by the scorn of other people – and in particular by the scorn of strangers. Because in my experience it is exceedingly rare to be able to help people through scorn."

ahem... Hell Yeah!, and I'd say that if you have few such experiences, your experiences must have been very aenemic. It'll have to be later though, I've got to go buy a fuse and pick up one of the kids.

Bring back the public stocks, sez I. We suffer from too little scorn. Apparently our restaurants and hair salons and fashion sense are all in need of someone (usually British) to mock us into reality, if the shows on Bravo are any indication.

Thorny - you've never been helped by scorn? Some of my own most memorable and beneficial teaching moments came about as a well-deserved verbal lashing. Sometimes, it's the only way to get a person's attention and help them remember the lesson.

As to the church thing you were positing earlier, I bet if you were to take a poll of raccoons you'd find that the majority are in fact regular and devout members of a church or synagogue. You might want to first determine Bob's thoughts on churches, both regarding himself and others, before griping about the lack of involvement in a church community.

There's always "get the fuck out" - since he hates this country so much, there's really no spiritual reason for him to stick around. He could spread his message just as easily from modest accommodations back in Britain or India, or someplace less guilty of warmongering.

"I am quite convinced that the true spiritual challenge is to understand how that conversation could go while trying to imagine being on the same side as your interlocutor. I think that Deepak Chopra would not be afraid to hold your hand and talk about your differences in a sympathetic way."

Aninny 6:33-Hey, if you wanna hold Deeprick's hand and be all for "biversity" or whatever you call it, ain't no one stoppin' ya. Might cost ya though. Maybe if you pay for the DIP package, which is prolly the $2995.00 one. Still doesn't include balls butt whatever floats yer dingy.

Ah, the moon, which if y'all have noticed these evenings is a rather sinister looking scimitar of reflected light flanked by two exceedingly bright planets- I'm guessing Jupiter and Venus, but I don't want to go look it up.But back to The Moon. The card of The Moon in the Rider, Waite Tarot clarifies the symbolism a little. Notice that moon rises midway between two dark towers, and causes both Dog(domestic) and Wolf (wild) to howl in unison. Notice too that in the Rider image the rising of the lesser reflected light brings a lower, unclean creature (crawfish- not Kosher!) to come crawling up from the dark waters. A dark, unsettling tableau of images. An ominous card.And as a side question- (I don't have MOTT yet) Is there a reason given for the particular rendition of tarot that you are using with this series? Is this the same deck used in the book?

Anon, anon, and Anon, as you all know I am Ray's biggst fan, even if he is unable to refrain from taking Bob's bait.Also, Copper Thorn, could I get your number or the location of your church? You are clearly the most enlightened being to have graced these pages since Nags left the scene.

Copperthorn, you seem willing to forgive Deepak his (contemptible) contempt for America in general, and George Bush in particular- so long as Deepak -you know- "helps someone along the path"; but you're not so willing to forgive Bob a little contempt for Deepak even if Bob in his own way- you know- "helps someone along the path."Several of the regular One Cosmos readers are members, and others have been inspired by this blog to seek out membership in real churches. For others, like myself, this blog has been a gateway to a faith that otherwise eluded, or outright repelled them.

And as for you, and the other various contrarians- What is it that impells you to come over here, or anywhere for that matter, and "poke a stick" at all? No one here goes trolling at Huffington, or Kos. Last I looked, no one here is hounding atheists, or objectivists, or leftists, or even vegans for amusement. That would be some Raccoon behavior worthy of emulation, now wouldn't it?

A person needs all the scorn they can get until they are actually ready to be helped to be a better person else you continue feeding their darker nature and are played for a fool.Scorn has nothing to do with hate if applied correctly. It's too bad you haven't learned that lesson.

copper thorn said "I wonder Van if you can share the times in your life when you’ve been helped by the scorn of other people – and in particular by the scorn of strangers. Because in my experience it is exceedingly rare to be able to help people through scorn. And in the meantime, you end up wounding yourself by carrying around this sour emotion. I think the idea that you are going to help people by hating them is something that might be regarded as a red flag. "

First off to the last part that you said there, a common source of lefty 'correctional thinking',"I think the idea that you are going to help people by hating them...".

Scorn is not hate, and since that was necessary to say, I'll point out the other typical leftist points that shouldn't be necessary to point out to anyone who bothers to think about the words they use; denunciation' is not hate, punishment is not hate, holding standards of right and wrong is not hate, pointing out uncomfortable facts is not hate, pointing out that someone's behavior is immature, immoral and/or fattening is not hate, and so on.

Second, rewording that to something resembling what was said, "I think the idea that you are going to help people by scorning their behavior...".is still flawed, in that scorn, as with penal punishment, is not meant primarily meant or done for the benefit of the perpetrator, but for the benefit of the rest of society who is watching and may still have enough sense and self control to profit from it. If the perp can learn from justified scorn or punishment - fantastic, if not, too frickin' bad for him.

And yes I have learned and profited from scorn, ridicule, disapproval, etc, in everything from being a musician being heckled ("You suck! You slaughtered that song!") or being fired ("You didn't draw even half of what LeJump did, I don't care if you've got three weeks booking left on contract, get out now or the bouncers will throw your stuff, lights and all, out into the street"), you've got to put your oh-so-delicate sensibilities aside, and examine whether they had any basis for their scorn and derision, and make the necessary improvements, or continue to suck and lose bookings.

I received scorn from an uncle, from a friend of the family, and acquaintances for behavior or slipshod performance (in real life, not stage), which was significantly altered my life, one of which came when I was... 13?... and was sneaking alcohol around in a spice bottle thinking I was all cool, and the friend of the family gave me a dressing down that would have made a drill sergean proud, she told me I showed the judgment of someone who was soon to be an insignificant cool fool that she'd do her best to step over in the gutter without soiling her shoes on, which was only a start of a 2hr reaming that left me feeling about as big as a snail. But I tell you what, it cleared the dark glamour out of my mind lickety-damn-split, and I have no doubt saved me from a life not far from what she described.

I've had instances of scorn and derision as a salesmen, a sales manager, an instructor, and though toned down, as a developer - and I much prefer that blatant even harsh assessment and scorn, to 'polite' dishonesty which usually leaves you less than fully aware of your actual position and danger.

And of course I've had scornful comments wherever I've voiced my opinions, all of which I consider - if I find they have merit, I take it under advisement, if not, I discard it. If someone wants to be all disturbed and offended, 'wounding yourself by carrying around this sour emotion' instead of examining whatever scorn comes their way, that's their choice - but it's a stupid one.

I was thinking the same thing earlier. Occasionally, we reserve the worst scorn for those we love - precisely because we know they can do better. My dad occasionally graced me with a gimlet eye and sarcastic remark when I came home with B grades on my report card. When I griped that he praised my siblings for the same grades, he'd crack the verbal whip, because he knew I was slacking big time, while they had to struggle. And he was absolutely right, and I knew it. And it was good to know that he was paying attention. I'd like to say i studied harder after that, but I was a teenager; my self-assurance was invincible.

Other times, I turned the tables, when I had to be the adult to his childish behavior. The very fact that I was in that position made me scornful, but ultimately it was my anger in love that got through to him, not turning a blind eye and not appeasement. Sometimes no gentle words, no pleading for understanding, can break through the defenses we build. Sometimes it takes a solid thwack from a cluebat. That's just life.

But just for the record, I really do hate deepcrack. That guy's a total douche.

In the Christian tradition we say that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." Galatians 5:22 We say love is patient, kind, slow to anger and does not hold onto grievance.

When I look back at that period in which I indulged in scorn, part of my misunderstanding was thinking that salvation or enlightenment consisted of attaining an ordered, correct set of beliefs. It was a perception that I could think myself towards enlightenment or salvation. In theological language, we would say that this was an idolatrous relationship towards belief. As I have tried to suggest earlier, it involves an orientation towards, and identification with, abstraction as a way of life. It is a very preliminary stage of the spiritual life.

Van thanks for sharing your experiences of being helped by scorn. I can understand how your intention to be in harmony with people who challenge you can be a spur to growth. In religious traditions, we take a different approach -- that we all look to our own responsibility to create harmony. And we don't understand indulging in scorn and contempt as activities that we profit from. My understanding is that they are essentially unpleasant states of mind that involve a division from one's own self. Feeding and justifying these states of mind is feeding our own unhappiness

JWM, I do appreciate that people can be helped towards faith by coming to this blog. I perceive that Bob has contact with a living spring of Shakti and that is a rare accomplishment. Many are thirsty for this water. But we know from experience that contact with Shakti is no vouchsafe for the development of a theology that promotes life and faith.

I couldn't tell you why I wrote something this time and took up a conversation. I was moved to do so. Something about the approach here clearly reminded me of a lesson from my own past. I don't expect many people will take in what I have to say but it is possible it will plant a seed in one or two people that will ripen in a few years.

Aiiyayaii, what is it with these plodding, light-sucking, nous-atrophying, supposedly spiritual-elite types like Copper Top? Dude, if you're the product of what you want to teach, here it is in black & white: no thanks, run along now.

Van (7:35), regarding well deserved scorn & penile punishment, one can't do better than to look to scornmeister extraordinaire Mark Steyn for guidance. Just today, there's a fine, corrective example in THE SHAGGED SHEEP"This is a long piece but it does have underage sex and bestiality in it. So enjoy!" say's Mark.

Thorney, I'm going to just throw out a couple more observations, then I'll quit wasting Bob's comment space.

You said:"When I look back at that period in which I indulged in scorn, part of my misunderstanding was thinking that salvation or enlightenment consisted of attaining an ordered, correct set of beliefs."

Since you do seem to spend time reading here, how is it that you think Bob endorses or enforces an "ordered, correct set of beliefs?" We believe in that which is True, that which is Good, that which is Beautiful. Those are some very broad and exceptionally deep categories, and here at OC we find facets of them from traditions that span much of human experience. But all facets are not equally shiny, and some have different reflective and refractive qualities than others. Are we not allowed to observe the distinctions (for fear of being rude or hurting someone's feelings), or note when something is warped or inverted?

As to scorn, Jesus is God - but also Man. Do you think He didn't experience the full range of human emotions?

Your approach - essentially denying all negative emotions/ responses, whether they are appropriate in a given circumstance or not - may work for you on your path to enlightenment. But the path isn't the same for everyone, and some of us (especially true of raccoons, I suspect) are in fact made better by being on the receiving end of righteous scathing from time to time (isn't that what you're nicely trying to do here, after all - correct our behavior by pointing out its inconsistency? Demonstrating that it is lesser than you think it should be? Obviously, we disagree, but while you're being kind you are also demonstrating some level of scorn for our behavior), and conversely sometimes we must, when it is right, be a little wrathful.

There is a time for anger and a time for scorn, just as there is a time for mercy and a time for kindness. The important thing is to direct these emotions where they rightly belong - loving that which is good, hating that which is evil. Hating most especially that which claims to be good while supporting that which is evil.

Blowback is blowback, best left up to the experts to discern, but Deepak’s a dick. He’s in it for the cash, no different from Coulter but less entertaining, or Sri Chinmoy but with slightly more believable BS.

We look down on that sort of behavior. We've been known to fashion a whip and drive other self-righteous pricks from here, as they continue siphoning off the hard-won and precious spiritual coin that humbler seekers arrive with.

Ray said "...it always comes around to you claiming that I claim that nothing can be known. Not a distinction you care about..."

No, you evade the implications of what you say, I only point out what you refuse to acknowledge. A distinction you fail to distinguish.

Come on Ray, give the people a show... state something you believe, why you believe it, and the philosophical framework which supports it... you know, something like free will being a misleading effect of gene's... and back it up (always good for a laugh).

Van - Since I don't actually believe that, I'd be hard-pressed to state it. I actually am close to putting up my discussion of 'free will'; with that to refer to, discussing your (let's see... lynx -dump; wc -w) 30,000 word novella on the alleged implications of atheism will be a lot more straightforward.

Thank you SOAPM, my mistake trying to prompt Ray with something he has endorsed in the past (Psst... Ray, look up Dawkins & Dennett's positions, you know, the two guys you constantly ref).

Let me say it even clearer:

Please give us an example of something you believe to be True, why you believe it, and the philosophical framework which supports it (not links).

(Although we should keep in mind Hoarhey's point from back in Sept "What I find curious is that people are still arguing with Ray. The only productive reason for this would be to illustrate to other (newer) readers the source-error of his ways..."

Regarding those who believe Deepak Chopra is worth humoring because he "helps some people along the path": so much depends upon what path they are on, and in what direction they seek to travel. If Chopra is found to be leading seekers along the primrose path to Hell, for example, would you still be in favor of his teachings?

Ray said “Whatever presents or reveals itself to us through examination is "true" in the ultimate sense, that matter cannot be what it isn't. It is, and whatever I may observe about it is all the reality that is necessary in this life.”

A little thin on the substance there Ray, just enough to try and smuggle the ‘we can know everything by taking it at face value’ past the gates, trying to state “A is A” without acknowledging its implications (oh, I’m sorry, is that putting thoughts in your words?).

It could even almost pass for my a snippet of my ‘novella’s #1 & #2 below:

1. Reality IS, Existence exists.2. Identity, What exists, exists as something.3. Consciousness, In perceiving that which exists, we become conscious of it and ourselves.

But it’s in leaving off #3 where you get wobbly, where if pressed further you will shade off into “I think, therefore I am”, and of course where you try to leave that ‘face value’ as an end in itself, a quantity divorced of the quality it is a quantity of. And of course the attempt to leave the metaphysically given, such as that rock over there that I’d like to throw your way, as if that flat & horizontal given, were on a par with our conceptual method of grasping it.

“I believe we can know everything by taking it at face value”

Really. Did you happen to notice that little election we had recently? Are the people who took Obama to be what they saw ‘at face value’, questioning any of that at the moment?

A is A Ray, but taking things ‘At face value’ is only where we start from as children in developing our conceptual understanding – but if you stop your philosophical development on that level, you become far less than childish.

The first word of Teilhard's Phenom. is "Seeing." When I first read that word, in 1968, which was embarrassingly late for me, it caused me to cease reading and contemplate its meaning for four hours. After that I required some Beaujolais. My then-stochastic structure was shaken to its root, but not from it.

Ray has stated succinctly, per request, the existential foundation of epistemology: phenomena.

From this basis Greek philosophical schools -- more like monastic schools and movements -- in their several ways developed language to make the discussion of it orderly and beneficial.

When the saving power of God delivered the miracle of Jesus the Christ and a spiritual community rose up and built out (economos) from that phenomenon into the Greco-Roman civilization, which was already in decline spiritually, Christian -- as they were derisively called -- prophets and educated men and women faced the task of discussing the miracle in terms understandable to Greco-Romans.

They were not aiming to discuss a belief system, or a religion, but a miracle of decisive salvic power.

They chose the ontological language developed by the Greek philosophical schools, principally Stoicism but not exclusively. They packed the news of the miracle in logistical clothing and got it across rather successfully.

They called themselves "Christian apologists" and subsequent theological consensus has deemed them and their era Christian Apologetics.

I am going to assume that no one here thinks that apologetics means saying one is sorry for something.

Some years on, but not far, Greek philosophical theology reached its apogee of development in the school of thought which was really a sophisticated religion developed by the Egyptian Plotinus and called Neo-Platonism.

Neo-Platonism and Christianity as classically formulated share a common source: the language of Logos Theology that originated in pre-Christian Greek philosophical/monastic schools.

Christianity as classically formulated has other sources besides Logos Theology (e.g., Tibetan Buddhism), so it is not identical with Neo-Platonism and travels other than Neo-Platonism does in several particulars.

However, it is not possible to draw a line between Christianity and Neo-Platonism and then reject the one while admitting the other. This procedure just cannot succeed because both systems share a common root.

The fellow who seems to think he wears a crown of copper thorns is misinformed in this regard.

His biblical exegesis to eschew scorn as a worthy attitude is also.

I cannot think of a religion that does not encourage scorn, fear, anger, hate and every other negative emotion in its rightful place, and every such one has such a place.

Nothing is not sacred.

Gagdad Bob works directly in the eugenic line of Christian Logos/Apologetic Theology.

This is simultaneously the line of Vedic Adwaithin Philosophy.

It should be assumed that the words Theology and Philosophy include the phenomenology of Piety.

Logos/Apologetic Theology and Philosophy are "answering" theology. They stand before (apo) the world and talk reasonably (logos) with the world in the most refined language the world calls its own and is ready to accept.

This is Bob's practice.

It is difficult because the world today has little refined language left and even less it accepts and so the difficulty these days is or at least seems far greater now than in earlier times.

Ray, either there is nothing or there is not nothing. If there is nothing, there is no explanation. If there is not nothing, that is every explanation. You seem to have affirmed that there is not nothing. Therefore, you require no explanations, is it not?

What About Bob?

Who spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Who is your nonlocal partner in disorganized crimethink? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!

Goround ZerO:

The Cosmic Area Rug:

The empty center is Beyond-Being. The circles are dimensions of Being. Your life is a path for the Spirit to pass from periphery to center. Thoughts and choices -- truth and virtue -- are the paving stones.

Only Error is Transmitted:

Buck Mulligan, Official Mascot

Official Sponsor of the Kosmic Kit Scouts, Laniakea Supercluster Chapter:

"No Kit Left Below"

Fuck You: War

Late last night, in search of light, I watched a ball of fire streak across the midnight sky. I watched it glow, then grow, then shrink, then sink into the silhouette of morning. As I watched it die, I said, ‘Hey, I’ve got a lot in common with that light.’ That’s right. I’m alive with the fire of my life, which streaks across my span of time and is seen by those who lift their eyes in search of light to help them though the long, dark night. --Nilsson

We see that yesterday is our birthday, today is our life, and tomorrow we are gone. So we have just one day to learn all we need to know, and that day is today. --Petey